In conclusion, carrying out cognitive neuroscience experiments is an extremely delicate process and small changes to the design may lead to completely different results and different neural processes being activated. The block-design in [1]} differs from the one in [2]} in a number of design choices and analysis procedures, including the duration of each group of trials and the number of breaks (20 minute blocks [1]} with no mention of a break, compared to the about 4 minutes in [2]}). Given the complex, and mostly unknown, nature of the human brain, it is often not trivial to compare results, even with the same exact designs, as outcomes strongly depend on the subjects' conditions. This is especially true with small scale studies as both [2]} and [1]} are.
Attempting to generalize from findings with different designs, as [1]} did, based on the results of completely different studies is definitively wrong, an unconventional practice and a causal fallacy. Indeed, the fact that, in [1]}, block-design results are similar to rapid-design (with block labels) results — similarity on which the whole refutation in [1]} is based — happens only because both their experiments are flawed by the same methodological error (e.g., the duration of the experiments extremely long), and not because of the block-design.
